Though I write this in the small hours of November 5th, rest assured dear readers that I have no intention of re-enacting the Gunpowder Plot. Conspiracies aside, the question of monarchy’s place in Britain is one that our democracy must confront head-on if we are to take ourselves seriously.
Many would argue that the Royal Family stands as a unifying symbol of “Britishness”, something we "mustn't grumble" about, as accepted as the sky over our heads. Yet recent revelations that King Charles III and his heir, Prince William, are profiting millions from charities and the NHS cast a shadow on this assumed unity. Graham Smith, a leading voice in republicanism, sees this as yet another signal of an inevitable shift towards a republic in the United Kingdom. I’m here to lend my voice to this cause.
At the forefront of this conversation is my friend Graham Smith, CEO of Republic, an organisation dedicated to challenging the monarchy through public protest and advocacy. Since King Charles took the throne two years ago, Smith has argued — both in speeches and in his compelling book Abolish the Monarchy — that the institution underwhelms in principle and in practice. The reasons are myriad: from the monarchy's negligible economic benefit and environmental hypocrisy to misuse of public funds and the myth of an impartial Crown. Smith’s conclusion? Britain is primed for a republic.
For the sake of brevity I elaborate here just one of these republican arguments: the myth of the impartial monarch. To this end I engage with my esteemed colleague Nathaniel Delo’s recent defence of the monarchy, arguing that the idea of impartiality is, at best, a convenient illusion.
I won’t pretend to be neutral here: I’d rather see the UK as a republic. Like Smith, my reasons are many, but the notion of an “impartial monarch” has always stood out. Delo’s thoughtful article gives weight to the monarchist argument, acknowledging flaws in the republican movement while attempting to bolster the case for a monarchy. However, his argument relies more on nostalgia and public sentiment than on the reality of the monarchy's actions.
Thomas Paine once wrote, "A long habit of not thinking a thing wrong gives it a superficial appearance of being right." For too long, we Brits have accepted the monarchy not for any inherent merit but under the assumption that it does no harm. Delo claims we enjoy a "non-partisan Head of State who exudes stability and assuredness" but this is a comforting fiction. As Aristotle taught us, it’s essential to distinguish between should be and what can be. A non-partisan, impartial, and politically restrained monarchy may be what we should have. But the monarchy we actually have is anything but, and I see no way for us to rectify this.
Anyone familiar with the outmoded quirks of our constitution knows that the Precedent Book serves as the guidebook for the Cabinet. It explicitly states that Cabinet papers and ministerial proceedings must be shared with the sovereign, the Prince of Wales, and ministers. Every minute detail, from policies to cabinet discussions, is accessible to both the King and his heir. And beyond this is the royal consent rule—not to be confused with Royal Assent—which requires any bill impacting the private interests of the monarch or heir to gain their approval before it completes its journey through Parliament.
Gone are the days when one had to appeal to Parliament for a divorce, so the average citizen may indeed wonder ‘Well, what bill affects only these two royals?’ As Smith points out, Charles and William aren’t just figureheads; they are substantial business owners, landlords, employers, and investors. Three years ago, The Guardian’s investigative reporting uncovered that the royal family has used this rule to vet over 1,000 laws affecting their privileges and financial interests, lobbying the government to amend draft legislation when necessary.
For instance, in 1973, the Queen pressured the Heath administration to shield the monarchy from financial scrutiny. More disturbingly, she sought to exempt the palace from race discrimination laws introduced by Home Secretary James Callaghan, asserting that it was "not the practice to appoint colored immigrants or foreigners” to certain palace positions. This exemption has persisted, placing the monarchy above basic anti-discrimination laws.
Republicans like Smith are often accused of resenting the current royals rather than the monarchy itself—a convenient misconception. Yet, history suggests a pattern: Queen Elizabeth II’s lobbying for her own interests has been well-documented, and her son, King Charles, appears equally inclined. After a decade-long legal battle, The Guardian finally accessed Charles’s so-called “spider memos,” revealing how, as Prince of Wales, he lobbied the government on numerous issues, from foreign policy to healthcare.
These instances of intervention – of which there are over 1,000 – may well reflect more poorly on the individuals occupying these offices than on the offices themselves. However, the monarch’s constitutional entitlement to lobby in their own interest undermines any claim that the head of state remains “above” the political fray. It erodes public confidence in an impartial monarchy. Those of you even more constitutionally informed may note that recent changes limit royal consent to the third reading of bills, but this hardly excuses the fundamental contradiction of an ‘impartial’ monarch leveraging privileged access to legislation for personal gain.
I’m all for the debate, and it would certainly be a privilege to discuss the monarchy’s future with my colleague, Nathaniel Delo. Let’s make sure, however, that this debate is conducted on reasoned principle and veritable fact, not the fallacy of faith that underpins so many monarchists’ defences of their not so impartial monarch.
Image: Flickr/Number 10 (Andrew Parsons)
No image changes made.
Comentarios